"Jones is another prospect that seems to be getting unusually high grades from a lot of analysts and evaluators, but the tape simply doesn't support it. Granted, he's been playing out of position at UCLA as a 0-technique inside space-filler, and he simply isn't built to be that kind of player. But as he has moved around at times, he simply hasn't displayed the burst or suddenness that you'd like to see out of an impact end at the next level. His natural strength and power does show up from time to time, but only when he has the initial space to get up to speed, which won't be very frequent in the NFL. He also comes off the line high too frequently and lacks the flexibility to cover a lot of ground laterally, so he missess a lot of opportunities in the backfield, or ends up pushed out of the play completely. A guy who has been moved around as much as he has, hasn't really been given a fair shot at showing NFL scouts what he can do, so workouts could be critical for him. It seems as though Senior Bowl week helped his stock a bit as he had a few impressive practices, but the tape doesn't show the over-hyped explosiveness that many claim to see in him"

Shows some guts ranking Tank Carradine #2. Carradine is generally considered a round 2-3 prospect. I like that he had Werner #1 and was as mortified by Datone Jones' game footage as I was. Didn't really like that he had Mingo #1 for LEOs, because he's a more extreme Bruce Irvin and Irvin looks likely to be permanent specialist. I did like that Stephens ranked Ansah as his #1 5-tech. I think 5-tech suits Ansah's power and athleticism very well. He has Alex Okafor lower than I think he deserves, but Okafor isn't a player worth arguing over.

I'm with Scott, I'd have Armonty Bryant very, very high on my list, maybe #1. Apparently Derek Stephens is not yet aware of him.

kearly wrote:Shows some guts ranking Tank Carradine #2. Carradine is generally considered a round 2-3 prospect. I like that he had Werner #1 and was as mortified by Datone Jones' game footage as I was. Didn't really like that he had Mingo #1 for LEOs, because he's a more extreme Bruce Irvin and Irvin looks likely to be permanent specialist. I did like that Stephens ranked Ansah as his #1 5-tech. I think 5-tech suits Ansah's power and athleticism very well.

I'm with Scott, I'd have Armonty Bryant very, very high on my list, maybe #1. Apparently Derek Stephens is not yet aware of him.

I would take Bryant, but only after trying to get some private dicks to buy weed off of him.

kearly wrote:Shows some guts ranking Tank Carradine #2. Carradine is generally considered a round 2-3 prospect. I like that he had Werner #1 and was as mortified by Datone Jones' game footage as I was. Didn't really like that he had Mingo #1 for LEOs, because he's a more extreme Bruce Irvin and Irvin looks likely to be permanent specialist. I did like that Stephens ranked Ansah as his #1 5-tech. I think 5-tech suits Ansah's power and athleticism very well.

I'm with Scott, I'd have Armonty Bryant very, very high on my list, maybe #1. Apparently Derek Stephens is not yet aware of him.

I would take Bryant, but only after trying to get some private dicks to buy weed off of him.

Good call, if it's garbage, pass on him. But if it's good sh$#, draft the man!

By the way, who's Armonty Bryant? Looks like I need to do some reading.

I'm with Scott, I'd have Armonty Bryant very, very high on my list, maybe #1. Apparently Derek Stephens is not yet aware of him.

Derek Stephens is aware of him. I know this because...I'm Derek Stephens.

Guys out of East Central who get arrested for selling weed during practice aren't exactly high on NFL scouts' lists. Technically he's raw, and while naturally explosive at the snap, isn't going to be a sub-4.7 guy that's an ideal fit for Seattle.

I've talked to several scouts about a few of the small-school prospects and while they like Bryant's size, length and explosiveness, most see him as a UDFA who needs to earn the respect of coaches by not being stupid first. Then they'll look at the football player more closely.

Does this mean he won't get drafted? No. Someone could reach and take a flyer on him in the later rounds, but I'd take a guy like Meshack over him any day, due to lvl of competition difference and character among other things. We'll add an "honorable mention" section at some point and he'll certainly be in the discussion there.

Thanks for all the time you put in Derek. It is appreciated, as are the time and posts by Kip, Scott and Rob among others. This is why I know that Seahawks fans are the best. That and I occassionally see articles on sports sites that look almost identical to posts I see on here.

Major props Derek! Your scouting work is much appreciated by us Hawk fans.

I'm assuming you're going to rank DTs as well (unless you have already and I missed it), but I'd love seeing a DT sub-grouping ranking system of guys who specifically can play the sub-package Jason Jones/Clint McDonald roles. I imagine it would include a few of those same 5-tech DEs you mentioned already, that maybe you weren't as high on as a DE, but adds a lot more value as a player who can get situational snaps on the inside all the while developing their pass rush moves on the outside.

dstep24 wrote:I've talked to several scouts about a few of the small-school prospects and while they like Bryant's size, length and explosiveness, most see him as a UDFA who needs to earn the respect of coaches by not being stupid first. Then they'll look at the football player more closely.

I like you because we scout independently and agree 99% of the time- which I can only say for maybe two other people (Scottemojo and Matt Waldman from football outsiders). Our brains must be wired very similarly. So don't take this as a slam, but I feel very differently than you do on Bryant.

I get that there are obvious concerns. But consider these two players:

Player B is of course Armonty Bryant. Player A is Chandler Jones, a first round pick who finished with 6 sacks as a rookie and has the upside of a 10+ sack a year player.

Now, it's hard to tell because of level of competition, but I expect Bryant to test better in agility drills than Jones did. Jones never wowed me last year when I broke down his game compilations, and quite frankly I think 90% of the reason he went in round 1 was because of his measurables- particularly his rare arm length.

Point being, Bryant has 1st round measurables, and if he tests very well, it could be argued that he is among the most physically gifted DEs in the draft.

Now you have level of competition concerns, to which I say I have very little. He physically dominated his competition and his measurables and quickness suggest he has a lot of dominance to spare. Guys that look like they are barely edging by weak competition worry me. Those who demolish weak competition worry me much less. Bryant also dominated at the Texas vs. Nation competition against division I players, which helps further dismiss competition concerns.

Then you have the character concerns. NFL GM's often view draft picks as "business decisions", and if you ran a business you'd probably hesitate making a make or break move on a person, no matter how talented, that has a history with drugs, and drug dealing certainly seems much worse. Bruce Irvin was once involved in drug dealing, but that was years before his draft, and wasn't on the field. Where most NFL FO's see these things in black and white terms, ours tends to be forgiving of "mistakes" so long as the person has a good heart and will "protect the team." A cancer like Titus Young probably scares Pete Carroll much more than a former drug dealer.

The business decision aspect could cause Bryant to be a late rounder, or possibly UDFA- but it does not change the fact that his talent is extraordinary. His situation reminds me a little of Brandon Marshall, a 6'4" 230 pound monster who had 210 yards and 3 TDs in his final college game, but wasn't taken until the late 4th because of character concerns. Sure, the "risk" aspect may have changed Marshall's value that weekend, but it never changed how talented he was. Janoris Jenkins was another player I thought was a no doubter elite talent and I thought a lot of teams made a mistake passing on him despite his risk. Like Marshall, Jenkin's sordid past did not change his talent level. It's important to remember that and not fall into the trap of reflexively thinking that "lower draft stock = less talent."

Last year, I thought Russell Wilson was the 3rd best QB prospect in the NFL draft, and I wouldn't have hesitated to draft him at #12 if I had to. I was not fooled by the height excuse. Even still, I graded Wilson as a 3rd rounder because I felt that taking him in the first 60 picks would almost certainly be unnecessary. I feel the same way about Bryant. To me, he's maybe the #1 DE in the draft in terms of physical talent, but I probably wouldn't draft him until at least the 3rd, because I don't expect him to go before then.

I would also never let what actual NFL scouts think affect my judgment very much when it comes to any "outside the box" material. Scouts are notorious for being inside the box thinkers, and it was recently revealed that John Schneider's own scouting department was strongly against him drafting Russell Wilson, even in the 3rd round. John Schneider didn't have a scouting background, and was more of an outside the box thinker. For which all Seahawks fans should be eternally grateful.

Finally, regarding speed. Bryant is expected to run in the 4.8 type range. He looks quicker than that to me- so we'll see- but most DEs with his size tend to be a bit slower. Will that cause Seattle to rule him out? Pete Carroll talked about speed at pass rusher ad nauseum last year. Bruce Irvin was the fastest pass rusher in the draft. All fair points. But Raheem Brock ran a 4.73 forty at his combine. Chris Clemons (as a 236 pound LB) ran a 4.68. Robert Mathis (whom Pete has made references to) ran a 4.67. Pete gushed about Courtney Upshaw last year despite a weak 40 time, as reported by one of his close friends and backed up by two other sources. Speed is very important to Pete, but there is evidence to suggest that it might not be a deal breaker.

Further, this just isn't a great year for speed DE's. Mingo is the only one who I think has a realistic shot at running a sub 4.5, and he'd be redundant with Bruce Irvin being a superior version of the same player and already occupying the specialist role. If Irvin looked primed to take over the every down LEO role, that would be one thing, but that seems far from the case. This means that if Pete wants to upgrade the pass rush, he's going to almost certainly have to look at guys that run in the 4.6 to 4.8 range.

I should add that my opinions are not necessarily tailored to Seattle's needs. For example, I am a huge fan of John Simon even though he's very unlikely to fit Seattle (he's tailor made for a physical 3-4 team that utilizes slow OLB's like Baltimore or Pittsburgh). I just think Bryant is a tremendous talent. Whether Seattle deems him a fit is a whole different discussion.

Last edited by kearly on Thu Feb 14, 2013 4:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Regarding Meshack Williams, he kind of reminds me of Chase Thomas from Stanford in the sense that he looks much smaller than his listed size. Most people now project Thomas as a 3-4 OLB since guys that are two small for 4-3 DE often end up as 3-4 OLB, although to my eye he's more physical than Meshack despite being listed 7 pounds lighter. You mention Corderro Law and I think that's a good comp too at least in terms of size and physical ability.

That said, I wouldn't rate any of those guys very high, even if they do fit the profile decently well. I was a huge fan of Bruce Irvin last year pre-draft, but I think last season proved that speed isn't the only thing that matters- size, power, and anchor matter too. It's hard to get that complete 3 down player out of a 240-245 pound player. While I am not especially high on David Bass, I think that's the type of player we'll see Seattle targeting at LEO. 260-ish with a 4.6ish to 4.7ish forty (and a relatively good 10 yard split).

Mingo would not be redundant. The tapes on he and Irvin are completely different. Mingo has instincts against the run and possesses more anchoring ability/strength than Irvin, not to mention is just more aware of what's going on around him. Irvin's faster and has better get-off, but for the weakside LEO end, Mingo wouldn't be the Irvin we saw in the ATL game.

As for Bryant, I agree with you on his lower-level dominance. They all looked like JV'ers out there compared to him. But based on the quality of O-line I watched on tape, they just might have actually been (not really, but you know what I'm saying). It wasn't just a lower level. Those guys were small, unathletic linemen. That being said, I love his instincts in terms of immediately going to the active hands - nice swim, rip, and even a spin - those come automatic for him which means he'll do the same thing (most likely) regardless of level. What we can't tell is how he'll respond when those moves simply don't work with remotely close to the same ease that they do now. A lot of small-school guys (Adrian Hamilton, for example) lose their technique in the bigger faster environment, rather than just getting better at that technique and sticking with their strengths - so we'll need to see what he does there. Not saying he'll do the same, but it's a routine problem for small-school guys that scouts and FO are aware of around the league.

The Character isn't as much of an issue for me personally, but selling weed at practice means he's a moron. Moron is one thing, mistake is another. Moron means you literally don't use your brain correctly. It's not bad judgment. It's no judgment. Guys like that (i.e. Jarriel King) scare the crap out of scouts.

Each of these two issues, in their respective vacuums...you're right...not awful. However, combine small-school, low level of comp and the character issues, and you've got a 6th-UDFA type prospect. I love the athlete I see on tape in this guy, and there's certainly a lot to like. He's more like JPP than he is Jones though, and can really use the hands. I'd be excited if Seattle grabbed him in the 6th, 7th or UDFA because he'd be worth the gamble. Anything higher than that though, and I'm concerned. I get the Texas vs. Nation stuff, but how many guys have done well in those pre-draft exhibitions, then flopped at the college level? There's always someone raving about how a guy did at one of these bowl games, or even worse - practices - and using that to prop their position. BTW...not saying that's what your'e doing. I think you've actually put together a nice assortment of different points to support your position.

Guys from smaller schools like that (I mean, c'mon...this isn't USF, this is EAST CENTRAL) can't afford the same character flaws as the SEC and Pac-12 guys, plain and simple.

I appreciate the dialogue and respect your perspective for sure. Like I said, I'd love this guy on the roster for the right "price", but there's no way I rank him up with the other guys here, without having a better idea of how he'll transition to bigger, faster fields.

Recon_Hawk wrote:Major props Derek! Your scouting work is much appreciated by us Hawk fans.

I'm assuming you're going to rank DTs as well (unless you have already and I missed it), but I'd love seeing a DT sub-grouping ranking system of guys who specifically can play the sub-package Jason Jones/Clint McDonald roles. I imagine it would include a few of those same 5-tech DEs you mentioned already, that maybe you weren't as high on as a DE, but adds a lot more value as a player who can get situational snaps on the inside all the while developing their pass rush moves on the outside.

I appreciate that. My pleasure. I love this stuff a little too much.

As for DTs, yes, I'm wrapping up the same analysis on DTs right now, and that ranking page will be up by Saturday night. Another 20+ players, and we'll break them down by 5-technique, 3-technique and 1-technique/nose (run pluggers). Each week, I hope to get a new position group up.

You can also check out NFLDraftScout.com and see several of my scouting reports over there, if you're itching for something early.

ivotuk wrote:Thanks for all the time you put in Derek. It is appreciated, as are the time and posts by Kip, Scott and Rob among others. This is why I know that Seahawks fans are the best. That and I occassionally see articles on sports sites that look almost identical to posts I see on here.

dstep24 wrote:Mingo would not be redundant. The tapes on he and Irvin are completely different. Mingo has instincts against the run and possesses more anchoring ability/strength than Irvin, not to mention is just more aware of what's going on around him. Irvin's faster and has better get-off, but for the weakside LEO end, Mingo wouldn't be the Irvin we saw in the ATL game.

First, thank you for mentioning the Atlanta game. I detailed Irvin's struggles after that game which didn't go over well with many naive fans who think Irvin is the "ideal" LEO. That's no rip on Irvin, but I know what he is and know what he isn't, and right now he is nowhere close to being a 3-down player.

Mingo and Irvin are not exactly the same player (among other things, Irvin had roughly as many sacks in one season (2010) as Mingo has had in 3 years combined). While I agree with you that Mingo anchors better against the run and is more natural as a run defender overall, that's damning with faint praise, almost like saying Nickleback is a more tolerable form of "butt rock" than Creed. He gets pushed around much like you would expect an allegedly 230 pound end would be. Since then he's reportedly added 15 pounds, up to 245- and hey- Chris Clemons came out of college at just 236 pounds (as a LB) and with time he became an excellent run defender. Von Miller was a similar story. So I'm not saying there isn't hope, but from what I've seen so far, I would grade him "unacceptably low" in run defense as an every down player, currently, and wouldn't feel great about having him take over as the LEO any time soon.

I am also gravely worried about his pass rush ability overall, and he's on my short list of players I hope get selected before #25. But that's another discussion.

dstep24 wrote:As for Bryant, I agree with you on his lower-level dominance. They all looked like JV'ers out there compared to him. But based on the quality of O-line I watched on tape, they just might have actually been (not really, but you know what I'm saying). It wasn't just a lower level. Those guys were small, unathletic linemen. That being said, I love his instincts in terms of immediately going to the active hands - nice swim, rip, and even a spin - those come automatic for him which means he'll do the same thing (most likely) regardless of level. What we can't tell is how he'll respond when those moves simply don't work with remotely close to the same ease that they do now. A lot of small-school guys (Adrian Hamilton, for example) lose their technique in the bigger faster environment, rather than just getting better at that technique and sticking with their strengths - so we'll need to see what he does there. Not saying he'll do the same, but it's a routine problem for small-school guys that scouts and FO are aware of around the league.

Believe it or not, I was actually a scout team offensive lineman for a division II football program back in the day. So I know a little bit more about what level of competition means than most. It's a massive drop from division I, but still a massive rise from High School. My roommate was on the team and was a monster, I think he was 6'10". Too big for the NFL, heh. I'm 6'1" and I was probably median height though. Lots of 6'1"-6'2" guys. I remember when Jared Veldheer came out of division II and thought there was no way a player who came from the same level of competition I did could make it in the NFL, but to his credit he's turned into a very good player for the Raiders.

I think what you are talking about in regards to overcoming the adversity of higher competition (moves no longer working, etc), is true for every player to some extent. A big reason why Damontre Moore is being talked about in the 2nd round right now is because he relied on a bullrush too much and typically bull rush does not translate very well to the NFL unless your last name is "Suh." Bruce Irvin was a brilliant pass rusher because of his athleticism advantage in college, but hit a little bit of a wall in the pros when he was facing excellent athletes at offensive tackle every week.

In my scouting reports at SDB I frequently mention level of competition as a concern, and some GMs (usually bad ones) even discount small school players completely because of it. But when I see a player dominating so thoroughly, then dominate again against division I competition, I basically throw it out. Be careful not to fall into the trap of automatically discounting a player for low competition without considering the full context. For some players, level of competition means everything, for others it means essentially nothing. If you plopped JPP into a JUCO, would you discount his success because he was facing horrible competition? Given that we're talking about a guy with Chandler Jones / JPP type tools, I think it's a little silly to assume he produced because of bad competition. I'm not guaranteeing that he'll waltz into the NFL and dominate, or that level of competition isn't obscuring flaws, but simply saying that if nothing else, we know this guy has elite level tools and significant natural ability and level of competition doesn't change how special he is from a "tools" vantage point.

dstep24 wrote:The Character isn't as much of an issue for me personally, but selling weed at practice means he's a moron. Moron is one thing, mistake is another. Moron means you literally don't use your brain correctly. It's not bad judgment. It's no judgment. Guys like that (i.e. Jarriel King) scare the crap out of scouts.

Kids do stupid things. I am more concerned about character/responsibility. Will he put in the long hours and hard work? If I interview him and he seems disinterested, that is when I'm putting the late round sticker on him.

dstep24 wrote:Each of these two issues, in their respective vacuums...you're right...not awful. However, combine small-school, low level of comp and the character issues, and you've got a 6th-UDFA type prospect. I love the athlete I see on tape in this guy, and there's certainly a lot to like. He's more like JPP than he is Jones though, and can really use the hands. I'd be excited if Seattle grabbed him in the 6th, 7th or UDFA because he'd be worth the gamble. Anything higher than that though, and I'm concerned. I get the Texas vs. Nation stuff, but how many guys have done well in those pre-draft exhibitions, then flopped at the college level?

The reference to Jones was simply regarding measurables- I like JPP as an overall comparison much better.

The point of his dominating the Texas v. Nation example is to dispel the idea that he is a bad player benefiting from weak competition. It seems hard to believe that he's being made to look good by JUCO players when he comes out and dominates in an exhibition against players from powerhouse division I programs. I found it hard to believe anyway, you wouldn't look at a guy with 1st round tools and just assume he was just skating by in the JUCO ranks.

Rather than lump all of Bryant's concerns together cumulatively, I think it's smarter to address and weigh them one at a time. The character concerns need to be investigated. They could be a dealbreaker, or they could prove inconsequential. I do not think level of competition is a major concern, for reasons stated. You could use those factors as excuses to put a late round sticker price on Bryant despite his elite physical ability and skill. I don't know about you, but I would much rather be the GM who had the 4th round grade on Jared Allen back in 2004 than the GM who had a 6th round grade on Allen. I hope you understand that I am not comparing Bryant to Allen as a prospect, I am simply saying that both were obvious physical specimens with natural pass rush talent from small schools. Some GMs found excuses not to draft him. Kansas City saw an opportunity and seized it.

Your knowledge of what scouts think is helpful, because it helps paint a picture of Bryant's draft stock. That said, like Dontari Poe last year, Bryant could be one impressive combine away from a very different draft projection.

For the record, I don't think Armonty is a first round talent. I think he might be the most physically talented DE in this draft, but I thought Quinton Coples was the most talented guy last year and I didn't want him because it was clear he made business decisions on the field. Just like it is clear Bryant makes business decisions near the field.

But I also don't think he will be there when we draft in the fourth round. Maybe even the third. I joked about seeing if a PI could arrange a weed buy off of him, but I would screen the guy seven ways to Sunday before I committed a pick to him in the third round.

That said, having Margus Hunt ahead of Okafor in Derek's ratings is curious. Margus is an upright player who feasted on sub par opponents, and Okafor screams good get. I want to hate Okafor, I really do, but I keep seeing tools when I watch him. And no offense to Derek Stephens, but projecting a list of LEO players who have never actually played the LEO position seems more like voodoo than scouting to me. I will bet big damn money that if somebody was scouting the LEO position the year Chris Clemons came out, the 236 pound linebacker would not have made any lists. Any.

Scottemojo wrote:For the record, I don't think Armonty is a first round talent. I think he might be the most physically talented DE in this draft, but I thought Quinton Coples was the most talented guy last year and I didn't want him because it was clear he made business decisions on the field. Just like it is clear Bryant makes business decisions near the field.

Be careful not to fall into the trap of automatically discounting a player for low competition without considering the full context.

Why, thank you for the advice, but I'm falling into no traps. I'm going off substantial low-level-of-competition boom/bust evidence that suggests we should all temper our enthusiasm greatly on guys like this. I'm not going out on a limb here. Anyone pretending to be able to look at a tape on a guy playing at East Central, and claiming to be able to accurately project him as to the NFL as a success off that tape, may be underestimating the speed difference.

People who fall into traps like the one you mention here, fall into them because they don't look at tape. I'm looking at tape on the guy and saying that I see several aspects of Armonty Bryant that should project nicely regardless of level of competition. But the one x-factor that neither you nor I will ever be able to project about anyone, is how well they handle the transition psychologically which has proven to be, at times, the bigger challenge for many prospects who clearly have the physical tools to be something special.

Mark Legree was a great example. Played with uber-confidence and dominated at App State, but literally froze on an NFL football field. There was absolutely zero indication on his tape, that it would happen that way. And he has the athleticism and speed to play in the NFL. He just couldn't ever get it right, between the ears.

Again, great dialogue.

We'll have to disagree on Mingo. He's not a day-1 12-sack guy, but in a rotational role with a recovering Clemons, he could develop nicely with this coaching staff, considering his work ethic and freakish physical attributes. I could see a similar career projection to that of Clemons, but quicker, in that he wouldn't be as discounted and over-looked as Clemons was during the in between years. As I mentioned in my report on Mingo, I don't normally throw out conservatism and weigh a guy's ranking so heavily on "upside" as I do with him, but every scout has "their guy" they tend to bank on, and I think he's that guy for me. And I'm perfectly comfortable with ending up wrong on him. I think every scout has to be comfortable with that, on guys they hold in high regard.

I hope you understand that I've been writing scouting reports for 3+ years now, and I frequently cite level of competition concerns. I agree on the "unknown factor", although every year I do this I fear the unknown less and less.

As far as establishment mentality which you have occasionally cited, I've taken from John Schneider's example and treated consensus with healthy skepticism, to put it kindly. The consensus view was that Russell Wilson was a late round pick, but after watching a ton of game compilations and doing my homework on what height disadvantage really means, I knew that consensus view was lazy and well off the mark. I said many times before that draft that Wilson was the Tom Brady you could see coming (another great player that was lazily dismissed for one conspicuous factor). I think it's helpful to know where "the process" stands- because it allows you to take advantage of market inefficiency in the draft- something John Schneider is a master of. But I never believe something because it's what others believe- that's what I mean about falling into traps, like the trap of thinking Wilson's height or Brady's athleticism would automatically prevent them from having NFL careers, since that's what the spreadsheet says.

The reason I don't fall for that kind of bullshit is because whenever I hear an excuse not to rate a guy I dig into it. Sometimes it proves valid. Sometimes it's bullshit and everyone lazily buys into it anyway. Consensus is a very powerful thing with evaluators. Nobody wants to be the black sheep and be made to look a fool. I've watched several low level competition players this year and been HIGHLY skeptical that they weren't being propped up by crappy opponents. Off the top of my head, Trumaine Johnson was one such case last year. Then you have a guy like Courtney Gardner who just blows you away with what he can do physically and there is no doubt about what he's capable of. Sure, there are unknowns, but there are less of them for players like these since at the very least you can rule out athleticism obfuscation, and the GMs who are less afraid of the unknown are the ones who strike it rich on players like these in the mid rounds.

I also agree about tape vs. other factors. My brother was in sales and he loves talking about guys who "fake it til they make it." As a right brain dominant person, I am more of an abstract analysis guy than a technician, but I "get it", and I've learned how to recognize others who "get it" too. I try to never rely on someone else's scouting report because so many of them are written by people who don't get it, and even the good ones view through a different lens. I do like your work though- because like you I'm looking at tape and coming to the same conclusions almost every single time. Like me, you are not afraid to call a golden boy over-rated, or praise a pariah if the tape shows good things.

I really liked Mingo's short area quickness- he can dart. Actually, I LOVE that aspect of him- he's one of the best I've seen in that regard. He's fast off the snap, too. That's about all I like about him though. I don't know what his arms measured as, but he plays like he's got the arms of Tyrion Lannister most of the time- reminds me of Melvin Ingram last year in that it's "game over" when he engages the tackle directly. Bruce Irvin has similar strengths and weakness as a pass rusher, but Irvin is so red-assed and relentless, one of the best "hustle sack" DE's I've seen (I was a huge fan of his last year).

Feel free to disagree, but I don't see a lot of untapped potential with Mingo. What he's built to do well he's already doing, what he's struggling with is something he's not built to do well (disengage from blocks). He is better against the run than Irvin, but weaker as a pass rusher. I actually like guys like Lemonier (and many others) more than Mingo and Lemonier might go 3rd round.

And I know I'm having a pipe dream, but I'd love to see Seattle find a way to fit John Simon into their scheme. Sure, Kaepernick will have a field day running circles around him, but if he adds weight he could be a badass as a DT/DE tweener.

I agree, great talk Derek. I'll be posting articles again on SDB soon (I'm Kip, btw). Keep up the great work at your site. I really enjoyed your podcasts last season, and that you were quite possibly the only person on Earth besides me to recognize a "natural QB" aspect to Darron Thomas.

Just like other bloggers who have stopped in from time to time, he probably has his own site and work to deal with. Nice exchange of observation techniques but the forewarning on how to go about doing what one does surely wouldn't lead to an extended discussion.